Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10

Seems like a commoner Twelver, thus the debate was somewhat mediocre. However, the common refrains, like: "Oh, everyone in the Muslim Ummah knows Verse 5:67 was revealed about Ghadir", show some underlying issues [like lack of research about topics beyond scratching the surface, as a matter of point the traditional Sunnis would find the presentation of the Verse 5:67 as تهديد pointed towards the Prophet (Salla Allahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) to be a big problem even in the abstract].
Imamah-Ghaybah / Sunni-Shia debate about Al-Tabligh Verse & Ghadir Khumm
« Last post by MuslimK on Today at 01:20:40 AM »
A friendly discussion between brother Hassan Shemrani (Sunni convert from Shi'ism) and an Iraqi Shia debater in Hyde Park Speakers' Corner, London, UK (13/08/2017)

Topics covered:

- Al-Tablīgh verse (Arabic: آیة التَّبليغ, propagation/proclamation verse) which is the 67th verse of Surat Al-Ma'ida. Shi'a believe that the subject of the message of the verse was the succession of the Prophet (s) by 'Ali (r).

- The Event of Ghadīr (Arabic: واقعة الغدير), according to Shi'a beliefs, on his return from Hajjat al-Wida', the Prophet (s) introduced Imam Ali (s) as his Khalifah (successor) after himself at a place called Ghadir Khumm.

Imamah-Ghaybah / Re: Leadership in Quran.
« Last post by Link on Yesterday at 06:48:47 PM »
Suratal Ra'ad

Suratal Bayana says Mohammad is the clear proof yet they were demanding a sign.  Indeed that hiding of the sign as Surah before showed is for God, and it's up to God to manifest it.  Here it emphasizes that they demand a sign while Mohammad is but a warner and for every people, there is a Guide.

The guide is the one who God manifests with clear proofs and is ultimately himself God's proof on earth, and he manifests him to some people while to others he and the proofs for him are hidden.

He is the one with knowledge of the book alluded at the end.

And while they demand a sign, a Messenger can only bring a sign with God's permission.

Ultimately through  God's proof is proven and manifested through his revelations while physical miracles are temporal to the people witnessing it, and the guide is also the clear proof of God.

But indeed who God misguides, has no Guide. 

Imamah-Ghaybah / Re: Confused Shia considering becoming Sunni
« Last post by Noor-us-Sunnah on Yesterday at 04:11:56 PM »
M)The meaning of Hadith of Thiqlayn
Your interpretation for Hadith of Thiqlayn is odd and incorrect.
Actually, you have based your understanding on weak and incorrect hadeeth. And my understanding is not odd rather, it is understanding of several Sunni Scholars as well.

(i). Shaikh Ali Muhammad as-Sallabi stated in his book:

What is proven in Saheeh Muslim is that the command was to adhere to the Book of Allah, and the instruction was to show respect and kindness to Ahl al-bayt, as we have seen in the hadith of Zayd ibn Arqam in Muslim. The Prophet(saw) enjoined adherence to the Book of Allah, then he said: “And the people of my household. I remind you of Allah with regard to the people of my household, I remind you of Allah with regard to the people of my household, I remind you of Allah with regard to the people of my household”. What he(saw) enjoined was adherence to the Quran. With regard to Ahl al-bayt, the Prophet(saw) enjoined taking care of them and giving them their rights, which had been granted to them by Allah(swt).(See: Haqbat min al-Tareekh, page 203). [Source: Ali ibn Abi Talib, Ali Muhammad as-sallabi, vol 2, page 413].

(ii). Dr. Muhammad Ali as-Saloos, who discussed the speech at Ghadeer and the advice to adhere to the Quran and Sunnah. He studied the reports about adhering to the Quran and Sunnah and the reports about adhering to the Quran and the family of the Prophet(saw) and examined them critically, then he said: “From the above, we can see that the hadith of the two weighty matters is one of the hadiths which are sound in both chain of narration and text. However, of the eight reports which enjoin adhering to the family of the Prophet(saw) alongside the noble Quran, not one of them is free of some weakness in the chain of narration”.  (See: Ma’a Al-Shia al-Ithna Asharia, vol 1, page 136). [Source: Ali ibn Abi Talib, by Ali Muhammad as-sallabi, vol 2, page 411].

(iii). Al-Sindi said in the explanation of, ‘My Ahlulbayt:’ It was as if the Prophet (saw) made them equal in importance to his position. Just as in his (pbuh) life, it was him and the Qu’raan after his death. It was his family and the Qu’raan. But it means that we must abide by their love and position, not abiding to their orders and actions. (Source: Jamia Tirmidhi Sunan Al -Tirmidhi. Vol. 6, Pg. # 335).

(iv). Shaikh al-Islam Ahmed ibn Taymiyyah stated:

However, as for the term ‘al’Itrah’, we find in Saheeh of Muslim narrated Zayd ibn Arqam that he said; The Messenger of Allah spoke to us at a ghadeer Khum located between Mekka and al Medina and He said; “I am leaving among you the two weight things one of them is greater than the other, the Book of Allah (swt)” and incited us to adhere to it and He said; ”My progeny whom they are my Household, I remind you the pledge towards Allah by respecting my household,  I remind you the pledge towards Allah by respecting my household,  I remind you the pledge towards Allah by respecting my household” and in here lies the order to follow the Qur’aan and that He recommended the nation to take care of His Household and as for His saying; ”If you adhere to it than you would never astray after, the Book of Allah (swt) and my Itra (Family)”, it was narrated by al Tirmidhi and Ahmad ibn Hanbal said it is weak. (Source: Bayan Talbis al-Jahmiyyah. Vol. 8. Pg. # 230 – 231).

Prophet clearly said that we must follow Ahlul Bayt and grasp and hold fast them. He also said that they are his Successors.

1.Zayd ibn Thabit (may Allah be pleased with him) has narrated:
The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him and his progeny) said, "I have left two complete Successors among you: The book of Allah and my progeny. Indeed, they will never separate from each other until they meet me at the pool [of Kowthar, in Paradise]."(إِنِّي تَرَكْتُ فِيكُمُ الْخَلِيفَتَيْنِ كَامِلَتَيْنِ: كِتَابَ اللَّهِ، وَعِتْرَتِي، وَإِنَّهُمَا لَنْ يَتَفَرَّقَا حَتَّى يَرِدَا عَلَيَّ الْحَوْضَ).
(Musnad Ibn Abi Shayba, V1, P.108). Imam Ahmad ibn Hambal in his Musnad, Imam Al-Tabarani in Al-Mo'jam Al-Kabir and others have also narrated this Hadith.

Albani in his book, Sahih Al-Jami' Al-Saqir wa Ziyadatihi, V1, P 482, and Al-Haytami in two parts of his book [Majma' Al-Zawaeed V9, P163 and V1, P170] have said that this Hadith is Sahih (صحيح).


The hadeeth with this wording is actually Munkar(denounced).

This wording comes in the tradition of narrator Shareek from Rukain from Qasim bin Hassaan from Zaid bin Thaabit. It was related by Ibn Abi Shaibah in “al-Musannaf” (31679), Imam Ahmad in his Musnad (21578, 21654) and others.

Narrator Shareek was weak, especially when he opposes others. [See Taqreeb (1/417)] in Shia books al-Sadiq condemned him to hell and he is described as an “Enemy of the Shia”, his grandfather fought al-Husayn (ra)

And as for narrator Qaasim bin Hassan, then Dhahabi quotes from Bukhari that his hadith is Munkar and he was not known. [Meezan (3/369)]

When returning to Al-Albani’s takhreej of Kitab Al-Sunnah, we find the following comments:

حديث صحيح: وإسناده ضعيف لسوء حفظ شريك وهو ابن عبد الله القاضي. والقاسم بن حسان مجهول الحال… وإنما صححته لأن له شواهد تقويه

“The narration is authentic: The chain is WEAK due to the weak memory of Shareek the judge, who is the son of Abdullah, and Al-Qassim bin Hassan, who is anonymous(majhool) in status… but I authenticated it due to supplementary narrations that strengthen it.”

Al-Albani is correct, for this chain is without a doubt weak. Upon returning to Al-Silsila Al-Saheeha to check out his supplementary narrations, we found that they came from the paths of Jabir, Zaid bin Arqam, Abu Sa’eed Al-Khudari, and others. However, none of these narrations includes the wordings “Khalifatayn”.

In other words, what Al-Albani is implying that, the overall narration is authentic, but the wording of this narration is weak, since it comes through a weak path. It is not conceivable to accept such a wording when more authentic versions of the narration do not have this wording. Hence the wording of Khalifatayn is Munkar(denounced).

Similar goes with Shaykh Wasiullah Abbas. In Fadha’il Ahmad (2/747 hadith #1032) Wasiullah Abbas says Isnadahu hasan li ghairih(the chain is hasan due to other chains) then says Shareek is weak, but there are shawahid(witnesses) then, in the end he says, “and the hadith is saheeh, See  (#170). He says the same thing under (hadith #1403 2/988) he says that there are many shawahid and “see (170)”.

But when we go back to(#170) which Wasiullah Abbas asked us to see, we find the following:

تركت فيكم ما أن تمسكتم به فلن تضلوا كتاب الله وأهل بيتي

This witness is WITHOUT the word Khaleefatain, Just like Al-Albani even Wasiullah Abbas is implying that, the overall narration is authentic, but the wording of this narration is weak, since it comes through a weak path.

In fact this narration in its current form, is Munkar(denounced) based on the authentic version of al-Thaqalayn.

Interestingly, we know that Rasul-Allah(saw) said in one version of hadeeth Thaqalayn, “Fandhuru Kayfa Takhlufunani Feehima”, meaning “So be careful how you deal with these two”. Thus he made a Wasiyyah or he(saws) willed for us to be careful in how we succeed him in both of these issues, and this proves that it is us who shall be responsible for them and not the other way around. `

[Ali is reported to have said similarly in of Nahj-ul-Balagha regarding the Ansar, he said: “If the Government was intended for them there would not have been a will concerning them.” (Nahj-ul-Balagha Sermon 67) ]

Esteemed Shia scholar Sayyid Muhammad Shirazi in his sharh of Nahjul balagha says while commenting upon the above words:

فلو کان الانصار امراء، کان اللازم ان يوصيهم الرسول صلي الله عليه و آله و سلم بان يعطفوا علي الناس لا ان يوصي الرسول صلي الله عليه و آله و سلم بان يعطف عليهم
If the Ansar were to be the rulers, it was necessary that the Prophet (saws) should have made the will that they should treat the people kindly, rather than the Prophet (peace be upon him) making the will that the people should be kind to them. (Nahjul balagha, with Taleeq of Ayatullah Shirazi, p. 103)

What `Ali means, is that the Messenger(saw) did not intend for the Ansar to be in a position of government, and the proof is that he (saw) told the believers and willed for them to treat the Ansar with goodness, whereas if they were entitled for it then he (saw) would have told the Ansar to treat the rest of the believers well as they would be in position of power. Since Rasul-Allah (saw) told us to succeed him in taking care of his Ahlulbayt(household) then it is proven that the government(Khilafah) after him was not intended for them.

Therefore, the word “Khaleefah” in this tradition doesn’t indicate the successor of Prophet (saws) in any way. Qur’an cannot be a successor of the Prophet (saws) for it was in authority even during the lifetime of the Prophet(saws). In fact, the Messenger of Allah(saws) himself followed the Qur’an. Khaleefah here is simply something which has been left behind.

2.The Messenger of Allah (s) said: 'Indeed, I am leaving among you, that which if you hold fast to it, you will never be misguided after me. One of them is greater than the other: The Book of Allah which is a rope extended from the sky to the earth, and my progeny - my Ahlul Bayt - and they will never separate until they meet me at the Hawdh [of Kowthar, Paradise].

Al-Albani has said that this Hadith is Sahih (صحيح) (See, Sahih Al-Jami' Al-Saqir wa Ziyadatihi by Al-Albani, V1, P482).

The narration is Daef(weak).

The hadeeth came in Sunan Tirmidhi:
حَدَّثَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ الْمُنْذِرِ، - كُوفِيٌّ - حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ فُضَيْلٍ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا الأَعْمَشُ، عَنْ عَطِيَّةَ، عَنْ أَبِي سَعِيدٍ، وَالأَعْمَشُ، عَنْ حَبِيبِ بْنِ أَبِي ثَابِتٍ، عَنْ زَيْدِ بْنِ أَرْقَمَ، رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا قَالاَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ "‏ إِنِّي تَارِكٌ فِيكُمْ مَا إِنْ تَمَسَّكْتُمْ بِهِ لَنْ تَضِلُّوا بَعْدِي أَحَدُهُمَا أَعْظَمُ مِنَ الآخَرِ كِتَابُ اللَّهِ حَبْلٌ مَمْدُودٌ مِنَ السَّمَاءِ إِلَى الأَرْضِ وَعِتْرَتِي أَهْلُ بَيْتِي وَلَنْ يَتَفَرَّقَا حَتَّى يَرِدَا عَلَىَّ الْحَوْضَ فَانْظُرُوا كَيْفَ تَخْلُفُونِي فِيهِمَا

`Ali bin al-Munthir al-Kufi-> Muhammad bin Fudayl-> al-A`mash-> `Atiyyah-> abu Sa`eed AND al-A`mash-> Habib bin abi Thabit-> Zayd bin Arqam.

Abu Sa`eed's (ra) chain has `Atiyyah and he is weak, as for Zayd bin al-Arqam's (ra) chain, its inclusion is a mistake by `Ali bin al-Munthir, this is because Zayd ibn al-Arqam never narrated this text in this form, this is the text of abu Sa`eed al-Khudari. al-A`mash and Habib bin abi Thabit are both Mudalliseen which adds even more weakness to this one.

This was weakened by Imam Ahmad as well, as mentioned by Ibn Taymiyyah in Minhaj al-Sunnah:
والحديث ضعَّفه الإمام أحمد؛ قال شيخُ الإسلام ابن تيميَّة في ((منهاج السنة )) (7/394): (سُئل عنه أحمدُ بن حنبل، فضعَّفه، وضعَّفه غيرُ واحد من أهل العِلم، وقالوا: لا يصحُّ)

3.Imam Ali (peace be upon him) narrated:
The Messenger of Allah (s) said: "I have left among you which if you grasp will cause you to never go astray, the Book of Allah whose rope is in my hand and yours, and my Ahlul Bayt".

Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani said that the Hadith is Sahih.(هَذَا إِسْنَادٌ صَحِيحٌ).
(Al-Matalibul Aliyyah by Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani, V16, P142)
Here is the chain:

Sulayman bin `Ubaydullah al-`Aylani-> abu `Amir-> Kathir bin Zayd-> Muhammad bin `Umar bin `Ali-> his father-> `Ali bin abi Talib

 Sulayman is Saduq, , Katheer bin Zayd is Saduq , Muhammad is `Ali bin abi Talib's grandson and Ibn Hajar said Saduq in al-Taqreeb.

It has three Saduq, narrators So it is apparently not the highest form of authenticity. Secondly, the text of the hadeeth is to be understood in the light of other hadeeth which is stronger than this one and have more clear wordings, that is the hadeeth of Zaid ibn Arqam in Sahih Muslim.

حدهما : كتاب الله ، فيه الهدى والنور ، فتمسكوا بكتاب الله وخذوا به – فرغب في كتاب الله وحث عليه ثم قال : « وأهل بيتي . أذكركم الله في أهل بيتي » ثلاث مرات

[One of them (is): The book of Allah, in it is guidance and light, so get hold of the Book of Allah and adhere to it. Then he urged and motivated (us) regarding the Book of Allah. Then he said: And my household, by Allah I remind you of my household (Three times).]

The Prophet(saws) defines these two heavy elements, the book of Allah contains the words of God, in it is the pure wisdom, the guidance of the soul and the light that extinguishes the darkness of ignorance. He(saws) informed them of the importance of the book and urged them to hold on to it and encouraged them to stick to its teachings.

The second element was his household, he reminded the Muslims of his household, just like any responsible man on his death-bed, he(saws) was worried about his family after his passing, so he reminded the Muslims of them, that they must honor them and love them and support them, he (saws) entrusted the nation with the fate of his family.

This hadeeth was said in Ghadeer Khum, this is where the narration of Thaqalayn took place, not in the farewell sermon(Khutba tul Wida), because the narrations related to the farewell sermon(Khutba tul Wida) are numerous and none of the authentic text of the farewell sermon contain any words regarding the household(Ahlulbayt).

This is what we find in the farewell Sermon(Khutba tul Wida) at `Arafat based on the authentic narrations of Jabir (ra) in Muslim and others:

وقد تركتُ فيكم ما لن تضلوا بعده إن اعتصمتُم به . كتابَ اللهِ . وأنتم تُسألون عني . فما أنتم قائلون ؟ قالوا : نشهد أنك قد بلغتَ وأدَّيتَ ونصحتَ

[I have left among you the Book of Allah, and if you hold fast to it, you would never go astray. And you would be asked about me (on the Day of Resurrection), (now tell me) what would you say? They (the audience) said: We will bear witness that you have conveyed (the message), discharged (the ministry of Prophethood) and given wise (sincere) counsel.(Sahih Muslim, Book 7, Hadith 2803)].

Notice that in the farewell Sermon, when the majority of Muslims were gathered, there is absolutely no mention of the household(Ahlulbayt), the only information we receive is that if the Muslims hold on to the Qur’an, they will never go astray. Therefore, ONLY Quran was referred a source holding which, Muslims would not go astray.

4.Zayd ibn Arqam (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated:
The Messenger of Allah (s) said:"'O people! Indeed, I am leaving behind two matters among you if you follow them you will never go astray: The Book of Allah and my Ahlul Bayt, my progeny".
(أيها الناس ، إني تارك فيكم أمرين لن تضلوا إن اتبعتموهما ، وهما : كتاب الله ، وأهل بيتي عترتي)
(Al-Mostadrak Aala As-Sahihayn by Al-Haakim, V3, P118)

Haakim said that the Hadith is Sahih.
Al-Hakim was mutasahil in his gradings. The hadeeth is weak.

Here is the chain:

Abu Bakr bin Ishaq & Da`laj bin Ahmad al - Sajiri  - > Muhammad bin Ayyub  - > al - Azraq bin `Ali  - > Hassan bin Ibrahim  - > Muhammad bin Salamah  - > his  father  - > abu al - Tufayl  - > Ibn Wadhilah  - > Zayd ibn Arqam.

Da`eef, al - Azraq is Saduq, al - Karamani is Saduq with mistakes, Muhammad bin Salamah is weak.

Prophet clearly said that Quran and Ahlul Bayt never separate from each other [وَإِنَّهُمَا لَنْ يَتَفَرَّقَا], but brother Noor-us-Sunnah said in post #23: "As for the argument that Quran, never separates from Ahlulbayt, then this is again a Shiee misunderstanding!!!"

The truth is obvious, except you don't want to accept it. What brother Noor-us-Sunnah have said in post #23 is about separating of slaves from Quran or Ahlul Bayt (as). But Prophet (s) said that Quran and Ahlul Bayt never separate from each other, not others from Quran or Ahlul Bayt.

Understanding of Sahabi disapprove the view that the purpose behind mention of Ahlulbayt in Thaqalayn was to seek guidance.

Narrated Zaid b. Arqam: Prophet(saw) said: I am leaving among you two weighty things: the one being the Book of Allah in which there is right guidance and light, so hold fast to the Book of Allah and adhere to it. He exhorted (us) (to hold fast) to the Book of Allah and then said: The second are the members of my household I remind you (of your duties) to the members of my family. He (Husain) said to Zaid: Who are the members of his household? Aren’t his wives the members of his family? Thereupon he said: His wives are the members of his family (but here) the members of his family are those for whom acceptance of Zakat is forbidden. And he said: Who are they? Thereupon he said: ‘Ali and the offspring of ‘Ali, ‘Aqil and the offspring of ‘Aqil and the offspring of Ja’far and the offspring of ‘Abbas. Husain said: These are those for whom the acceptance of charity(sadaqa) is forbidden. Zaid said: Yes. (Sahih Muslim, Book 31, Hadith 5920).

Notice, that when the noble Sahabi(companion) of Prophet(saw) was asked about who Ahlulbayt are, he replied that members of household(Ahlulbayt) in regards to Hadeeth Thaqalayn are those relatives of Prophet(saw) on whom the acceptance of charity(sadaqa) is forbidden. They are ‘Ali and the offspring of ‘Ali, ‘Aqil and the offspring of ‘Aqil and the offspring of Ja’far and the offspring of ‘Abbas.

Zaid bin Arqam(ra) did not say, Ahlulbayt are those who are chosen by Allah or those who were purified or those who were infallible. Rather Zaid(ra) GENERALIZED that Ahlulbayt in regards to Hadeeth Thaqalayn are those relatives of Prophet(saw) on whom acceptance of charity(sadaqa) is forbidden. The question which the readers should ponder over is that; Were all the members on whom acceptance of Sadaqa was made forbidden eligible to be adhered to save ourselves from going astray? Undoubtedly, No! People of knowledge know that not all the relatives of Prophet(saw) on whom acceptance of Sadaqa was made forbidden, were righteous, there were people among them who were unrighteous too and they were fallibles prone to commit sin and mistakes, to say the least. And even Zaid bin Arqam(ra) knew this fact very well, but still he defined Ahlulbayt mentioned in hadeeth Thaqalayn in a generalized manner, that those are the relatives of Prophet(saw) on whom acceptance of Saqada is forbidden( i.e ‘Ali and the offspring of ‘Ali, ‘Aqil and the offspring of ‘Aqil and the offspring of Ja’far and the offspring of ‘Abbas). Which implies that he didn’t understand that Ahlulbayt mentioned in Thaqalayn were those who must be adhered and from whom guidance must be sought.

The reason we are saying this is because of the generalized definition given by Zaid(ra). He described Ahlulbayt, as those relatives of Prophet(saw) on whom acceptance of Sadaqa was forbidden, this was the only condition he mentioned to define Ahlulbayt in regards to hadeeth Thaqalayn. This is the reason, even though Zaid(ra) accepted wives of Prophet(saw) were Ahlulbayt, yet he said that in regards to hadeeth Thaqalayn, Ahlulbayt were those relatives of Prophet(saw) on whom acceptance of Sadaqa was forbidden.

If Zaid bin Arqam(ra) believed that righteousness or purification, was a criteria to know Ahlulbayt in hadeeeth Thaqalayn, then he would have even included wives of Prophet(saw) in it, since all the wives of Prophet(saw) were righteous[If The Rafidah disagree then we give them the example of Umm Salama and Zaynab bint Jahash, atleast they must have been included], but Zaid(ra) didn’t include them and made a generalized definition that, it is those relatives of Prophet(saw) on whom Sadaqa is forbidden, even though it included some members who were unrighteous or members who were fallible and prone to sins and mistakes. Therefore, Zaid bin Arqam(ra) making a generalized definition which even included unrighteous members, is an apparent proof that, he didn’t believe that in regards to hadeeth Thaqalayn, the purpose behind the mention of Ahlulbayt was to adhere them, to be saved from going astray, or to seek guidance from them. He didn’t believe that the purpose behind the mention of Ahlulbayt in hadeeth Thaqalayn, was to adhere them for guidance.

Rather, the generalized definition made by Zaid bin Arqam(ra) and stating the only condition for it as, “Sadaqa being forbidden”, is a clear proof that, Zaid(ra) understood the purpose behind the mention of Ahlulbayt in hadeeth Thaqalayn was to take care of them and to be responsible towards them, not to adhere them or to seek their guidance, and this is the actual and correct understanding of hadeeth Thaqalayn.

Readers, might question that, how does the generalized definition of Ahlulbayt made by noble companion Zaid(ra) in regards to hadeeth Thaqalayn, prove that the purpose behind the mention of Ahlulbayt in hadeeth Thaqalayn was to take care of them and be responsible towards them?.

The answer is that, hadeeth Thaqalayn was mentioned on the location of Ghadeer Khum, this was in relation to what occurred during Hajj when, the Muslim army from Yemen returned to Makkah, they made multiple complains against their commander -Ali(ra) – who was a member of Ahlulbayt, and one of the complaint was that Ali(ra) had taken a slave girl from Khums, therefore Prophet(saws) rebuked those who complained against Ali(ra) and said that Ali(ra) even deserved more than that from Khums. Therefore, on the way back to Madina after Hajj, and after religion was perfected and after Farewell Sermon was given at Makkah; Prophet(saws) stopped at a resting place called Ghadeer Khum, and there he addressed people for befriending and loving Ali(ra) who was a member of Ahlulbayt, and He(saw) even mentioned hadeeth Thaqalayn, which mentions about being responsible towards Ahlulbayt.

The reason, Prophet(Saw) did so, is most likely because he realized that people criticized a member of his household(Ahlulbayt), who took his right from Khums, therefore Prophet(saw) felt the need to remind the people about the importance of taking care of his Ahlulbayt and to be responsible towards them, after him. Because his relatives due to relation with him, were prohibited from accepting Sadaqa(charity), and if some Muslims criticize or object against them, for taking their right, like a share from Khums, which was a right given to them by Allah in Quran, then that would create a big problem for his Ahlulbayt, since they weren’t even eligible to receive charity. And it would even be against Quran. This is the reason, Prophet(saw) mentioned Hadeeth Thaqalayn, where the purpose of mentioning Ahlulbayt, was to remind people about taking their care and for being responsible towards them.

This is the reason, noble Sahabi(companion) Zaid bin Arqam(ra) believed that, Ahlulbayt in regards to hadeeth Thaqalayn were those relatives of Prophet(saw) on whom acceptance of Sadaqa was forbidden, since these same people were eligible to receive a portion from Khums.

We read in Shia book regarding the ruling on Zakat:

وتحرم الزكاة الواجبة علي بني هاشم جميعا من ولد أمير المؤمنين علي بن أبي طالب عليه السلام، وجعفر، وعقيل، والعباس رضي اللهعنهم

Zakat is haram for all the Bani Hashim, from the progeny of Imam Ali(as), Ja’far bin abi Talib, Aqil bin abi Talib, and Abbas bin Abdul Muttalib, may Allah (swt) be pleased with them. (Al Muqniah by Shaikh Mufid, Page 243)

We read in Shia book regarding the ruling on Khums:

مسألة: المشهور أن المراد باليتامى والمساكين وابن السبيل في آية الخمس من قرابة النبي – صلى الله عليه وآله – من بني هاشمخاصة، ذهب إليه الشيخان، وابن أبي عقيل، وأبو الصلاح، وباقي فقهائنا

It is popular among our scholars that what is meant by the orphans, the poor ones, and the wayfarer, in the verse of khums (8:41), among the kindred of the Prophet (saw), are those exclusively from the Bani Hashim. Among those who advocated this view are Shaikh Mufid, Shaikh Tusi, ibn abi Aqil, Abu Salah, and other scholars.(Mukhtalif al Shia by Shia Allama Hilli, Volume 3 Page 330).

Comment: As can be seen, the ruling is the same with regards to khums as well, the ruling applies in general to all the Bani Hashim, not just the children of Fatima(ra) and Ali(ra). It is applicable on all whether they are righteous or not. This is same as the way, Zaid bin Arqam(ra) generalized Ahlulbayt.

The explanation and understanding of Sahabi Zaid bin Arqam(ra) is further strengthened by a reliable version of hadeeth Thaqalayn, which has the expression “Kitab Allah wa `Itrati Ahlu-Bayti“, we know that Ahlul-Bayt refers to the household, let’s discover what the `Itrah means in Arabic.

In the traditional Arabic dictionary Lisan ul-Arab 4/536 by Ibn Manthur, we read:

والمشهور المعروف أَن عتْرتَه أَهلُ بيته وهم الذين حُرّمَت عليهم الزكاة والصدقة المفروضة وهم ذوو القربى الذين لهم خُمُسُ الخُمُسِ المذكور في سورة الأَنفال

“And what is famously recognized is that his ‘Itrah’ are the People of his Household, and they are those upon whom Zakaah and the mandatory Sadaqah is prohibited; and they are the relatives (Thuw al-Qurbaa) who are due a fifth of the spoils of war(Khums), mentioned in Surat al-Anfal.”]

Therefore, it is proven that, as per the understanding of noble companion Zaid(ra), the purpose behind the mention of Ahlulbay in hadeeth Thaqalayn was to remind people about taking care of them and to be responsible towards them, not to adhere them or to seek their guidance, and this is the actual and correct understanding of hadeeth Thaqalayn.

This is further strengthened by the established fact that, before the perfection of religion at Farewell sermon on Arafah, ONLY Quran was mentioned as a source of guidance adhering to which Muslims would not go astray; there was no mention of Ahlulbayt in any authentic tradition about Farewell sermon.

Our view is also supported by the fact, that Jabir bin Abdullah(ra) who narrated the Farewell sermon to Muhammad bin Ali(Al-Baqir), led them in prayer(Salah).

Ja’far bin Muhammad reported on the authority of his father: We went to Jabir bin Abdullah and he began inquiring about the people (who had gone to see him) till it was my turn. I said: I am Muhammad bin ‘Ali bin Husain. He placed his hand upon my head and opened my upper button and then the lower one and then placed his palm on my chest (in order to bless me), and I was, during those days, a young boy, and he said: You are welcome, my nephew. Ask whatever you want to ask. And I asked him but as he was blind (he could not respond to me immediately), and the time for prayer came. He stood up covering himself in his mantle. And whenever he placed its ends upon his shoulders they slipped down on account of being short (in size). Another mantle was, however, lying on the clothes rack near by. And he led us in the prayer. I said to him: Tell me about the Hajj of Allah’s Messenger(saw). [Sahih Muslim, Book 7, Hadith 2803].

We find that Jabir bin Abdullah(ra) narrated to Muhammad bin Ali(Al-Baqir) about the final Hajj of Prophet(saw) before his death and it even included the Farewell sermon of Prophet(saw) in it, yet Jabir bin Abdullah led them in prayer in his house. Had it been that, he believed that adhering to Ahlulbayt or seeking guidance only through them or taking them as leaders was said by Prophet(saw) , then Jabir bin Abdullah wouldn’t have led the prayer in presence of Muhammad Al-Baqir(rah), he would have made Muhammad Al-Baqir(rah) lead the prayer. This also proves that, the purpose behind the mention of Ahlulbayt in Thaqalayn was not that they be taken as a source of guidance adhering whom Muslims would not go astray.

Note: We anticipate that, some biased and incompetent readers might jump to conclusion that, we mean to say that Ahlulbayt are not a source of guidance nor they should be adhered. No! This is not what we are saying, because Ahl us-sunnah does believe that just like Sahaba, even Ahlulbayt are a source of guidance and should be followed in goodness just as Quran commands to follow the foremost of Muhajireen and Ansar(9:100). We believe that adherence to them and following them is conditional, similar to the case of following Sahaba. Infact, we take a big part of our religion from the narrations of the scholars of the prophetic-household such as:`Ali ibn abi Talib (ra), `Abdullah ibn al-`Abbas (ra), `Abdullah bin Ja`far al-Tayyar (ra), wives of Prophet(saw) and others.

However, in regards to hadeeth Thaqalayn the purpose behind the mention of Ahlulbayt in it, was not regarding adhering them to be protected from going astray, rather the reason they were mentioned in Thaqalayn, was to remind people to take care of them and to be responsible towards them.

Even`Ali(RA) agrees with Sunni understanding of Hadith al-Thaqalayn, that the only means of guidance left behind by the Prophet(SAWS) is Allah’s book(Quran) :

ثُمَّ اخْتَارَ سُبْحَانَهُ لِمحَمَّد صلى الله عليه لِقَاءَهُ، وَرَضِيَ لَهُ مَا عِنْدَهُ، فَأَكْرَمَهُ عَنْ دَارِالدُّنْيَا، وَرَغِبَ بِهَ عَنْ مُقَارَنَةِ البَلْوَى، فَقَبَضَهُ إِلَيْهِ كَرِيماً صَلَّى اللهُ علَيهِ و آلِهوَخَلَّفَ فِيكُمْ مَا خَلَّفَتِ الاْنْبيَاءُ في أُمَمِها، إذْ لَم يَتْرُكُوهُمْ هَمَلاً، بِغَيْر طَريق واضِح، ولاَعَلَمٍ قَائِم. كِتَابَ رَبِّكُمْ [فِيكُمْ:] مُبَيِّناً حَلاَلَهُ وَحَرامَهُ، وَفَرَائِضَهُ وَفَضَائِلَهُ، وَنَاسِخَهُ وَمَنْسُوخَهُ، وَرُخَصَهُ وَعَزَائِمَهُ، وَخَاصَّهُ وَعَامَّهُ، وَعِبَرَهُ وَأَمْثَالَهُ، وَمُرْسَلَهُ وَمَحْدُودَهُ، وَمُحْكَمَهُ وَمُتَشَابِهَهُ، مُفَسِّراً جُمَلَهُ، وَمُبَيِّناً غَوَامِضَهُ.
[…Then Allah chose for Muhammad (saw) to meet Him, selected him for His own nearness, regarded him too dignified to remain in this world and decided to remove him from this place of trial. So He drew him towards Himself with honor. He (saw) left among you the same thing other Prophets left among their peoples, because Prophets do not leave them untended without a clear path and a standing ensign, namely the Book of your Creator clarifying its permission and prohibitions, its obligations and discretion…](Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 1).

Ali(RA) doesn’t mention that the Prophet(saw) left behind the Qur’an and Ahlul-Bayt as guidance, only the Qur’an and this was the way of previous prophets.

In addition, I do not know that why you connect this Hadith to salves!!! Prophet Muhammad (s) said that saying to all the Muslims, not slaves. Prophet (s) said: أيها الناس [O people!] [Sunan At-Tirmidhi, V6, P131 and Al-Mustadrak, V3, P118], and not O slaves! Please do not change the clear meanings of the Hadith.
It means slaves of Allah, all believers are slaves of Allah.
Imamah-Ghaybah / Re: Confused Shia considering becoming Sunni
« Last post by Noor-us-Sunnah on Yesterday at 09:03:44 AM »
L)'Ayesh and battle of Jamal

According to a narration in the Tarikh At-Tabari, 'Ayesha and those who with her, e.g., Zobayr, went to fight Imam Ali:

عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ ، قَالَ : ثُمَّ ظهرا ، يعني : طَلْحَة وَالزُّبَيْر ، إِلَى مكة بعد قتل عُثْمَان رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ بأربعة أشهر ، وابن عَامِر بِهَا يجر الدُّنْيَا ، وقدم يعلى بن أُمَيَّة مَعَهُ بمال كثير ، وزيادة عَلَى أربع مائة بعير ، فاجتمعوا فِي بيت عَائِشَة رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهَا ، فأداروا الرأي ، فَقَالُوا : نسير إِلَى علي فنقاتله.
"So they(Talha, Az-Zubayr, etc.) gathered in the house of Aesha. Then said their ideas. Therefore they said,' We will go towards Ali to fight him."
(Tarikh At-Tabari, V4, P452).
This report is Mursal of Zuhri. Imam Zuhri wasn't even born when these incidents took place.

Yahya bin Sa’eed Al-Qattan said: The disconnected reports of Al-Zuhri are worse than the disconnected reports of others, for he is a hafith, and he could name names, but wouldn’t name those that aren’t qualified or that he is embarrassed to name.

– Al-Shafi’ee said: The disconnected reports of Al-Zuhri are like nothing, for we found him narrating from those like Sulaiman bin Arqam.

– Ibn Ma’een said: The disconnected reports of Al-Zuhri are like nothing.

– Ibn Al-Madeeni said: The disconnected reports of Al-Zuhri are terrible.

See Al-Hadith Al-Mursal 1/337.

In addition, Al-Balaziri has narrated a Sahih narration in Al-Ansab Al-Ashraf that Imam Ali said:
إِنَّ حُمَيْرَاءَ إِرَمَ هَذِهِ أَرَادَتْ أَنْ تَقْتُلَنِي.
Indeed, Humayra' [i.e., 'Ayesha], the commander of this army wanted to kill me.
('Ansab Al-Ashraf, V2, P250).
Ibn Taymiyyah reported in his Minhaaj as-Sunnah (1/59 -62):

وقال مؤمل بن إهاب سمعت يزيد بن هارون يقول يكتب عن كل صاحب بدعة

إذا لم يكن داعية إلا الرافضة فإﻧﻬم يكذبون

Mu’mal Ibn Ihaab said: I heard Yazeed Bin Haaroon (d. 206H) saying,“The narrations of every person of innovation can be written as long as he is not a caller to it, except the Raafidah, since they are liars.

Here is the chain for this report:

وحدثني أحمد بن إبراهيم الدورقي، حدثنا أبو النضر، حدثنا إسحاق بن سعيد، عن عمرو بن سعيد، حدثني سعيد بن عمرو: عن ابن حاطب قال: أقبلت مع علي يوم الجمل إلى الهودج وكأنه شوك قنفذ من النبل، فضرب الهودج؛ ثم قال: إن حميراء إرم هذه أرادت أن تقتلني كما قتلت عثمان بن عفان. فقال لها أخوها محمد: هل أصابك شيء ؟ فقالت: مشقص في عضدي. فأدخل رأسه ثم جرها إليه فأخرجه.


‘Amr ibn Sa‘eed was either: the grandfather of Ishaaq ibn Sa‘eed, which is what appears to be the case, because his full name is Ishaaq ibn Sa‘eed ibn ‘Amr ibn Sa‘eed. Based on that, the isnaad is munqati‘ (interrupted), because the grandfather died in 70 AH (at-Tahdheeb, 8/34), and the grandson, the narrator, died in 170 AH (at-Tahdheeb, 1/204); there are one hundred years between the two deaths, so it is not possible that he could have heard from him. Based on that the isnaad is munqati‘ (interrupted) and da‘eef (weak).

Or: he was someone else, in which case he is majhool (unknown). Based on that, the isnaad is also da‘eef (weak). In either case there is an unknown narrator, and when a hadith is  narrated only by an unknown narrator, then it is to be rejected.


How could ‘Ali have said concerning ‘Aa’ishah (ra) that she wanted to kill him as she had killed ‘Uthmaan?!

This is pure falsehood. ‘Aa’ishah (ra) is completely innocent of the blood of ‘Uthmaan. She only went out at the battle of the Camel in an effort to bring about reconciliation among the Muslims.

عَنْ قَيْسِ بْنِ أَبِي حَازِمٍ: " أَنَّ عَائِشَةَ قَالَتْ لَمَّا أَتَتْ عَلَى الْحَوْأَبِ سَمِعَتْ نُبَاحَ الْكِلَابِ فَقَالَتْ : مَا أَظُنُّنِي إِلَّا رَاجِعَةٌ ؛ إِنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ لَنَا : ( أَيَّتُكُنَّ تَنْبَحُ عَلَيْهَا كِلَابُ الْحَوْأَبِ ؟ ) فَقَالَ لَهَا الزُّبَيْرُ: تَرْجِعِينَ عَسَى اللَّهُ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ أَنْ يُصْلِحَ بِكِ بَيْنَ النَّاسِ
Imam Ahmad (24133) narrated from Qays ibn Abi Haazim that ‘Aa’ishah said, when she came to Haw’ab and heard the dogs barking: I think that I should go back, for the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said to us: “At which of you will the dogs of Haw’ab bark?” az-Zubayr said to her: Do you want to go back? (Stay, for) perhaps Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, will bring about reconciliation among the people through you.

فَقَالَ بَعْضُ مَنْ كَانَ مَعَهَا : بَلْ تَقْدَمِينَ فَيَرَاكِ الْمُسْلِمُونَ فَيُصْلِحُ اللَّهُ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ ذَاتَ بَيْنِهِمْ
Imam Ahmad(23733): Some of those who were with her said: Rather proceed, for the Muslims will see you and Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, will bring about reconciliation among them thereby. [Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in as-Saheehah (474).]

وقد روى الإمام عثمان بن سعيد الدارمي رحمه الله ، بإسناده عن نَافِع، يَقُولُ: قَالَتْ عَائِشَةُ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهَا: ( وَايْمُ اللَّهِ ، إِنِّي لَأَخْشَى لَوْ كُنْتُ أُحِبُّ قَتْلَهُ لَقُتِلْتُ - تَعْنِي عُثْمَانَ - وَلَكِنْ عَلِمَ اللَّهُ مِنْ فَوْقِ عَرْشِهِ أَنِّي لَمْ أُحِبَّ قَتْلَهُ ) . " الرد على الجهمية
Imam ‘Uthmaan ibn Sa‘eed ad-Daarimi (rah) said, with his isnaad going back to Naafi‘: ‘Aa’ishah (ra) said: “By Allah, I fear that if I were to want him – meaning ‘Uthmaan – to be killed, then I would be killed. But Allah knows from above His Throne that I did not want him to be killed. Ar-Radd ‘ala al-Jahamiyyah by ad-Daarimi (83).

There is a corroborating report via Mujaahid from ‘Aa’ishah (ra) that was narrated by Na‘eem ibn Hammaad in al-Fitan (202).

According to another Sahih narration, Imam Ali also said to Ayesha:
استفززت الناس وقد أقروا حَتَّى قَتَلَ بَعْضُهُمْ بَعْضًا بِتَأْلِيبِكِ.
You exited people until they killed each other because of your sayings.
('Ansab Al-Ashraf, V2, P250).
Here is the complete report:
وحدثني خلف بن سالم وأبو خيثمة، قالا: حدثنا وهب بن جرير بن حازم، عن أبيه، عن يونس بن يزيد الايلي: عن الزهري قال: احتمل محمد بن أبي بكر عائشة؛ فضرب عليها فسطاطا، فوقف علي عليها فقال: استفززت الناس وقد فزوا حتى قتل بعضهم بعضاً بتأليبك. فقالت: يا بن أبي طالب ملكت فأسجح. فسرحها إلى المدينة في جماعة من رجال ونساء، وجهزها بإثني عشر ألفا.

Again this report is mursal of Zuhri, hence rejected.

Yahya bin Sa’eed Al-Qattan said: The disconnected reports of Al-Zuhri are worse than the disconnected reports of others, for he is a hafith, and he could name names, but wouldn’t name those that aren’t qualified or that he is embarrassed to name.

– Al-Shafi’ee said: The disconnected reports of Al-Zuhri are like nothing, for we found him narrating from those like Sulaiman bin Arqam.

– Ibn Ma’een said: The disconnected reports of Al-Zuhri are like nothing.

– Ibn Al-Madeeni said: The disconnected reports of Al-Zuhri are terrible.

See Al-Hadith Al-Mursal 1/337.

'Ayesha fought Imam Ali and in this battle many Muslims were killed an this is a big sin. according to an authentic Hadith [Ibn Hajar Al-asqalani said that it is Hasan. See fath Al-Bari, V13, P55], Prophet said to Imam Ali that in the battle of 'Ayesha against Imam Ali, he is the good one and 'Ayesha is the bad one:

'Abi Rafi' narrated:
The Apostle said to Ali,'Certainly an issue[the war of Jamal] will occur between you and Aesha.'
Then Ali asked from Prophet,' O Messenger of Allah, so am I the bad one?'
the Messenger replied,' No[=Aesha is the bad one], but when this issue takes place, send her to her home.'
(fath Al-Bari by Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani, V13, P55).

Adding "Ayesha is bad" in brackets, shows how deceitful Shias are. This is a proper translation of hadeeth:

سيكون بينك وبين عائشةأمر قال : أنا يا رسول الله ، قال : نعم ، قال : أنا من بين أصحابي قال : نعم ،قال : فأنا أشقاهم ، قال : لا ولكن إذا كان ذلك فأرددها إلى مأمنها.
Abu Rafi’i said: TheProphet(saw) told ‘Ali: There will be a problem between you and ‘Aisha, ‘Ali said: Me O Rasulullah!? he said: yes, ‘Ali repeated: Me from amongst all my friends!? he said: yes, ‘Ali then said: Then I must have a really horrible end, He(saw) replied: “No, but if it does happen then return her to the safety of her home.” sources: Narrated by Ahmad6/393, and al-Tabarani #995, also narrated by al-Bazzar #3272, al-Haythami said the narrators are trustworthy in Majma’a al-Zawaed, Ibn Hajar said: Isnaduhu Hasan in Fath al-Bari 59/13.)

In no way does it proves, Ayesha(ra) is bad one.
Imamah-Ghaybah / Re: Confused Shia considering becoming Sunni
« Last post by Noor-us-Sunnah on Yesterday at 08:01:29 AM »
K) Did Prophet enter Umm Salama under the cloak?
Allama 'Alusi [a Salafi Sunni eminent Mufasseer] said:
وأخبار إدخاله صلّى الله عليه وسلم عليا وفاطمة وابنيهما رضي الله تعالى عنهم تحت الكساء، وقوله عليه الصلاة والسلام اللهم هؤلاء أهل بيتي ودعائه لهم وعدم إدخال أم سلمة أكثر من أن تحصى، وهي مخصصة لعموم أهل البيت بأي معنى كان البيت فالمراد بهم من شملهم الكساء ولا يدخل فيهم أزواجه صلّى الله عليه وسلم

The narrations which say that Prophet (s) entered Ali, Fatima and their two boys (ra) under the cloak and his saying: O Allah these are my Ahl Al-Bayt, and his prayer for them and not entering Umm Salam under the cloak, is more than to be counted. So, this specifies the general meaning of Ahl Al-Bayt -whatever the Bayt means. So, Ahl Al-Bayt [in the verse of At-Tathir] refers to those whom covered by the cloak and the wives of Prophet are not among them [i.e., Ahl Al-Bayt].   
(TafseerAl-Alusi, V11, P195)

As I said, there is a Sahih Hadith that says that Umm Salama (ra) believed that she was not among Ahl Al-Bayt of the verse of At-Tahir. So, those minority of Hadiths which are weak and say that Prophet said to Umm Salama that she was among his Ahl, have not any value. Even if we accept them, we can say that as At-Tahhavi [an eminent Sunni scholar] said, Prophet meant that Umm Salama (ra) was not among the Ahl Al-Bayt of the verse of At-Tathir, as he didn't enter her under the cloak, rather she was included among those Ahl of Prophet who through following him can enter to this type of Ahl of him (s). As Abraham (as) said: "O my Lord! They have led astray many among mankind. But whosoever follows me, he verily, is of me" [14:36]. See Sharh Mushkil Al-'Aathar by At-Tahhavi, V2, P246-7 [H773].    .   
Here is another version, wherein we find that Umm Salama asked I'm I not from your Ahlelbayt after dua of Prophet(saws), and Prophet(saws) said Yes, InshaAllah.

عن أم سلمة قالت : في بيتي أنزلت { إنما يريد الله ليذهب عنكم الرجس أهل البيت } قالت : فأرسل رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إلى فاطمة وعلي والحسن والحسين ، فقال : هؤلاء أهل بيتي . قالت : فقلت : يا رسول الله أما أنا من أهل البيت ؟ قال : بلى إن شاء الله
الراوي: أم سلمة هند بنت أبي أمية المحدث: البغوي – المصدر: شرح السنة – الصفحة أو الرقم: 7/204
خلاصة حكم المحدث: إسناده صحيح

Umm Salmah said: in my house it was revealed ” God wants to remove all kinds of uncleanliness from you Ahlul-Bayt ” So the Prophet PBUH then sent after Ali and Fatima and Hassan and Hussein. He said: these are my Ahlul-Bayt. So Umm Salamah said: O Messenger of Allah? am I not also from your Ahlul-Bayt !? He said: yes Inshallah.

Narrator: Umm Salamah Hind bint Abu Umayyah.
Muhaddith: Al baghawi. in Sharh al Sunnah.
Hadith rank: Isnad SAHIH.

By seeing the different versions of Hadeeth Kisa from Umm Salama(ra), it must be concluded that, any such version with slightest weakness, should not be used to make a deduction, unfortunately, some scholars who weren't expert in Hadeeth verification, based their views using the weak versions of this hadeeth, hence their views won't count, because we have authentic hadeeth from Ibn Abbas, who was a known Mufassir of Quran, as well as Ikrima. Moreover, the context of Quran supports this stance as well.

As for your claim that Umm Salama(ra) believed that She was not among Ahlebayt, then I have proven that hadeeth to be weak and unreliable, along with strong evidence.

The most rational understanding of Hadeeth Kisa is as follows:

Shiekh Ali Muhammad Sallabi wrote:

The divine will referred to in the verse is His legislative will, which is different from His universal decree…Undoubtedly Allah removed ar-rijs from Fatimah, al- Hasan, al-Husayn, ‘Ali and the wives of the Prophet (may Allah be pleased with them all), but the divine will referred to in this verse is the legislative will. Hence it says in the hadith that when the Prophet(saws) wrapped them in the cloak, he said: “O Allah, these are the people of my household, remove from them ar-rijs.” The supplication of the Prophet(saws) settles the matter. If there was any indication in the verse of purification that purification of the people of the cloak had already taken place, the Messenger of Allah(saws) would not have covered them with the cloak and prayed for them by saying, “O Allah, these are the people of my household, remove from them ar-rijs.” This is clear evidence that the verse was revealed concerning the wives of the Prophet(saws), the Messenger of Allah(saws) wanted the people of the cloak to be included in this divine revelation of purification, so he gathered them and covered them with the cloak and prayed for them, and Allah accepted his supplication for them  and purified them as He(swt) purified the wives of the Prophet, as indicated by the text of the verse. [Ali Ibn Abi Talib, vol 2, page 365-366, by Ali Muhammad Sallabi]

Al-Shawkani, Fath al-Qadir (4:278-280)  “Ibn `Abbas, `Ikrima, `Ata’, al-Kalbi, Muqatil, and Sa`id ibn Jubayr said the wives of the Prophet are specifically meant [in 33:33], and by house are meant the houses of his wives as mentioned before in the verses. While Abu Sa`id al-Khudri, Mujahid, and Qatada – it is also related from al-Kalbi – said that those meant are specifically `Ali, Fatima, al-Hasan, and al-Husayn. They adduced the fact that the pronouns are in the masculine, but this was refuted by the fact that the noun Ahl is masculine and therefore necessitates a masculine gender as in the verse [Hud 73]…. A third group stands midway between the two and includes both [the wives and the `Itra]… A number of the verifying authorities consider this the most correct explanation, among them al-Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir, and others.”

Al Shawkani says in his tafsir al fat-h al qadeer the various views, and he says:

فمن جعل الآية خاصة بأحد الفريقين فقد أعمل بعض ما يجب إعماله وأهمل ما لا يجوز إهماله. وقد رجح هذا القول جماعة من المحققين منهم القرطبي وابن كثير وغيرهما

“and whoever makes this verse refer specifically to either group exclusively (the wives) OR (fatima, ali, hassan, hussein) then he has included part but excluded part which is forbidden to exclude. And to this position a group of scholars has gone, including Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir, and others.”

Imamah-Ghaybah / Re: Confused Shia considering becoming Sunni
« Last post by Noor-us-Sunnah on Yesterday at 07:24:48 AM »
J)The belief of Umm Salama (ra) that she was not among the Ahlul Bayt of the verse of At-Tathir

The Hadith is certainly Sahih and it is not Mursal. Its route of the narrators is as the following:

Ash-Shari'a by Al-Ajori, V4, P2095.
وَحَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ أَبِي دَاوُدَ أَيْضًا قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا سُلَيْمَانُ بْنُ دَاوُدَ الْمَهْرِيُّ قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ وَهْبٍ قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو صَخْرٍ , عَنْ أَبِي مُعَاوِيَةَ الْبَجَلِيُّ , عَنْ سَعِيدِ بْنِ جُبَيْرٍ , عَنْ أَبِي الصَّهْبَاءِ , عَنْ عَمْرَةَ الْهَمْدَانِيَّةِ قَالَتْ
The issue is the narration of 'Ammar bin Mu'awiya (=Abi Mu'awiya) Ad-Dohni/Al-Bajalii from Sa'id bin Jobayr. Al-Bukhari, Muslim and Ibn Hibban have said that 'Ammar heard Hadiths from Sa'eed. See Tarikh Al-Kabir by Al-Bukhari, V7, P28 [عمار بن معاوية أبو معاوية الدهني ودهن قبيلة من بجيلة الكوفي سمع أبا الطفيل وسعيد بن جبير], Al-Kona wa Al-'Asma by Muslim, V1, P758 [أبو معاوية عمار بن ابي معاوية الدهني سمع أبا الطفيل وسعيد بن جبير] and Al-Thiqat by Ibn Hibban, V5, P268 [وَكَانَ رَاوِيا لسَعِيد بن جُبَير]. In addition, both Az-Zahabi and Haakim grated a Hadith that is narrated through the narration of 'Ammar from Sa'eed as the Sahih which has the Shart of both Al-Bukhari and Muslim. See Mustadrak of Hakim, H3993 [ثنا عَمَّارُ بْنُ أَبِي مُعَاوِيَةَ الْبَجَلِيُّ، عَنْ سَعِيدِ بْنِ جُبَيْرٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا، قَالَ: «مَا سَكَنَ آدَمُ الْجَنَّةَ إِلَّا مَا بَيْنَ صَلَاةِ الْعَصْرِ إِلَى غُرُوبِ الشَّمْسِ» هَذَا حَدِيثٌ صَحِيحٌ عَلَى شَرْطِ الشَّيْخَيْنِ وَلَمْ يُخَرِّجَاهُ] and the opinion of Az-Zahabi about this Hadith in the Talkhis [على شرط البخاري ومسلم]. There are different satisfying reasons for rejecting the saying of Ahmad bin Hambal [i.e., 'Ammar did not hear anything from Sa'id based on a saying from 'Ammar] in internet. Google about it in Arabic.

In addition, in the comments that Sho'ayb Al-Arna'oot wrote for the Hadiths that are narrated through the narration of 'Ammar Al-Dohni from Sa'eed bin Jobayr, he did not mention that there is an 'Irsal in them [See, Musnad Ahmad, Al-Muhaqqiq: Sho'ayb Al-'Arna'oot, H2157 and H2525].
Brother your desperate and un-academic arguments make me laugh.  I provided, the view of the MAN in question himself, Ammar bin Muawiya.  This guy himself says, he didn't hear, but you don't want to accept that, lol desperation.

As for the views of those scholars whom you quoted, they were relating their views on the isnad(chain) in which it was mentioned that Ammar bin Muawiya heard from Saeed ibn Jubayr, however these views will get invalidated because of the presence of overwhelming evidence, where in Ammar bin Muawiya himself denied that he heard from Saeed bin Jubayr. And this was accepted by Imam Ahmad as well.

It would be injustice, if you reject the response of Ammar bin Muawiya himself, for the views of Imam Bukhari or Imam Muslim.

Ammar bin Muawiya, himself admitted that, He didn't hear anything from Sa'eed ibn Jubair(rah), so what could be a more powerful evidence, to weaken this report?

عمار بن معاوية الدهني
قال أحمد بن حنبل: لم يسمع من سعيد بن جبير.
قلت: وسأله أبو بكر بن عياش: سمعت من سعيد بن جبير؟ فقال: لا.
Ahmad said: He (Ammar) didn't hear from Sa'eed bin Jubair anything.

Abu Bakr bin Ayyash asked him: Did you hear from Sa'eed bin Jubair? He (Ammar) replied: No.[Tuhfat Al Tahseel by Al Iraqi p. 236]

This can also be found in Al-Dua'fa of Uqayli, vol 3, page 323.

(1341) عمار بن أبي معاوية الدهني حدثنا عبد الله بن أحمد قال حدثنا عبيد الله بن عمر القواريري قال سمعت أبا بكر بن عياش يقول مر بي عمار الدهني فدعوته فقلت يا عمار تعال فجاء فقلت سمعت من سعيد بن جبير قال لا
[Al-Dua'fa of Uqayli, vol 3, page 323.]
Imamah-Ghaybah / Re: Confused Shia considering becoming Sunni
« Last post by Noor-us-Sunnah on Yesterday at 06:45:34 AM »
I)The saying of 'Ayesh: Allah did not reveal anything from the Qur'an about us except what was connected with the declaration of my innocence [of the slander].

The verse of 'Ifk was not especially about 'Ayesha. It is about the wives of all the faithful men and, based on what Sunnis believe, the story of 'Ayesha became a reason for the revelation of those verses. Allah said: Indeed those who accuse chaste and unwary faithful women shall be cursed in this world and the Hereafter, and there shall be a great punishment for them [24:23].

so, 'Ayesha believed that just the verse of 'Ifk was revealed for the children of 'Abu Bakr, while 'Ayesha is one of them.

Already answered, and you chose to skip the answer.

If we give a closer look this narration we will find that it speaks about the verses of quran which wererevealed specifically for the offspring of abubakar(ra). Since marwan said a particular verse was revealed for Abdur rahman ibn abubakar(who was brother of ayesha(ra)), he didn’t intend to address this to hz ayesha(ra)) or any wife of the prophet. But hz ayesha(ra) replied him saying that for offspring of hz abubakar(ra) only the verse of innocence was revealed.

Moreover, the verse of purification encompassed even other wives of prophet(Saw).. not only hz ayesha(ra), that is why she didn’t include this verse while responding to Marwan.

Secondly we know that verses of surah ahzab (i.e “o wives of prophet(33:32)”)  was revealed for wives including hz ayesha(ra).. then why didnt she say that?  But the fact is that the reply of hz ayesha(ra) was only specific to the verses of Quran which were revealed specifically for the children of hz abubakar(ra)
Imamah-Ghaybah / Re: Confused Shia considering becoming Sunni
« Last post by Noor-us-Sunnah on Yesterday at 06:16:01 AM »
G)The Hadith in which Imam Hasan said that he is among the Ahl Al-Bayt that is in the verse of At-Tathir

So, the narration in which it is said that Imam Hasan (as) said that he is among the Ahlul Bayt of the verse of At-Tathir, is authentic. Also, it should be noted that Imam Hasan said that saying as one of the virtues of himself and Ahlul Bayt. But, if we think that the verse of At-Tathir says that Allah has ordered the Ahlul Bayt to do so and so doings, so if they do those orders they will be purified, this can not be considered as a virtue, rather, this is a responsible which must to be done.

Also, there is an other Sahih Hadith in which it is said that when a person hurt Imam Hasan, Imam for mentioning his virtue said that he is among the Ahlul Bayt of the verse of At-Tathir. The Hadith is as the following:
Narrated Abi Jomaila:
While Al-Hassan was praying, someone came and stabbed him. This caused Al-Hassan to remain in bed for several months. When he recovered, he gave a sermon: "Oh people of Iraq, we are your Umara' [leaders] and we are the Ahlul Bayt about whom Allah said: Allah just desires to repel all impurity from you, O Ahl Al-Bayt, and purify you with a thorough purification." He was still talking when all those present started crying.

Al-Haythami said that this was recorded by Al-Tabarani and the narrators are trustworthy [Majma' Az-Zawa'id, V9, P172].

So, the verse does not talk about a Tashri'i will of Allah. Because as I said, if we think that Allah said to Ahlul Bayt that He wants so and so orders for them, so if they do them, they will be purified, this can not be considered as a virtue for Ahlul Bayt, rather, it would be a responsible for them that must be done.
As explained earlier, We believe that Hasan(ra) was included in verse of Tatheer. Hasan(ra) didn't exclude wives of Prophet(saws) from this verse.

Secondly, Allah(swt) intending purification for Ahl-al bayt in itself is a virtue, even when it is Tashrihi(legislative). So as long as the Ahlelbayt fulfill the conditions, then they can claim the virtue. We have many examples of such things.

Hence, as for those who forsake the domain of evil, and are driven from their homelands(Mouhajirun), and suffer hurt in My cause, and fight [for it], and are slain – I shall most certainly efface their bad deeds, and shall most certainly bring them into gardens through which running waters flow, as a reward from God: for with God is the most beauteous of rewards.” (3:195).

Those who fulfilled the conditions here, for them this verse shows their virtue.

Similarly, we find in a hadeeth

Narrated Khalid bin Madan: That ‘Umair bin Al-Aswad Al-Anasi told him that he went to ‘Ubada bin As-Samit while he was staying in his house at the sea-shore of Hims with (his wife) Um Haram. ‘Umair said. Um Haram informed us that she heard the Prophet (SAWS) saying, “Paradise is granted to the first batch of my followers who will undertake a naval expedition.” Um Haram added, I said, ‘O Allah’s Messenger (SAWS)! Will I be amongst them?’ He replied, ‘You are amongst them. [Sahih al-Bukhari #2924]

In this hadeeth there is a virtue of those who followed the mentioned condition.

So, your baseless assumption that purification in hadeeth is Takhwini is wrong and based on pure conjecture. The correct view is that is was Tashrihi, as explained by scholars.

H)The saying of Imam Sajjad (as) that he is among the Ahlul Bayt of the verse of At-Tathir

I said that to prove that at least there is a historical evidence according to which Imam As-Sajjad (as) himself has claimed that he is among the Ahlul Bayt of the verse of At-Tathir. Also, it should be said that this narration is mentioned in the Tafseer of At-Tabari and Ibn Teymiyya has said that it includes the truthful narrations [ابن جرير الطبري ، ومحمد بن أسلم الطوسي ، وابن أبي حاتم ، وأبي بكر بن المنذر ، وغيرهم من العلماء الأكابر ، الذين لهم في الإسلام لسان صدق ، وتفاسيرهم متضمنة للمنقولات التي يعتمد عليها في التفسير]. See Minhaj As-Sunnah, V7, P179.
It's apparent that you intend deceit by these kind of arguments. A presence of report doesn't mean it becomes a historical evidence. If a presence of hadeeth means historical evidence then you,  should believe that the actual Mahdi is Isa(As) because of this hadeeth:
حَدَّثَنَا يُونُسُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الأَعْلَى، حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ إِدْرِيسَ الشَّافِعِيُّ، حَدَّثَنِي مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ خَالِدٍ الْجَنَدِيُّ، عَنْ أَبَانَ بْنِ صَالِحٍ، عَنِ الْحَسَنِ، عَنْ أَنَسِ بْنِ مَالِكٍ، أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ قَالَ ‏ "‏ لاَ يَزْدَادُ الأَمْرُ إِلاَّ شِدَّةً وَلاَ الدُّنْيَا إِلاَّ إِدْبَارًا وَلاَ النَّاسُ إِلاَّ شُحًّا وَلاَ تَقُومُ السَّاعَةُ إِلاَّ عَلَى شِرَارِ النَّاسِ وَلاَ الْمَهْدِيُّ إِلاَّ عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ
It was narrated from Anas bin Malik that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: “Adhering to religion will only become harder and worldly affairs will only become more difficult, and people will only become more stingy, and the Hour will only come upon the worst of people, and the only Mahdi (after Muhammad (ﷺ)) is ‘Eisa bin Maryam.” [Sunan Ibn Majah 4039].

Will you accept this? Ofcourse not. Hadeeths are checked based on their chains in whichever book they may be. So keep your unacademic arguments to yourself.

As for Tafseer Tabari, then Shiekh Salih Munajjid states:

اعتمدَ أقوال ثلاث طبقات من طبقات مفسري السلف ، وهم الصحابة ، والتابعون ، وأتباع التابعين ، ويذكر أقوالهم بأسانيده إليهم ، وهذه ميزة عظيمة في كتابه ، لا توجد في كثير من كتب التفسير الموجودة بين أيدينا ، غير أن هذه الميزة لا تتناسب مع عامة المسلمين الذين ليس لديهم القدرة على البحث في الأسانيد ومعرفة الصحيح من الضعيف ، وإنما يريدون الوقوف على صحة السند أو ضعفه بكلام واضح بَيِّن مختصر .

- فإذا انتهى من عرضِ أقوالِهم : رجَّحَ ما يراه صوابًا ، ثمَّ يذكر مستندَه في الترجيحِ .

 He(Tabari) relied on the views of three generations of mufassireen among the salaf, namely the Sahaabah, the Taabi’een, and the followers of the Taabi’een, and he quotes their opinions with isnaads going back to them. This is an important feature of his book which is not present in many of the books of Tafseer that are in circulation among us. But this feature does not matter to many ordinary Muslims who are not able to research isnaads and distinguish sound isnaads from weak ones; all they want is to know whether an isnaad is sound or weak by means of a clear and brief statement to that effect. 

When he has finished quoting their opinions, he states which he thinks is most likely to be correct, then he describes how he reached that conclusion. 

Moreover, if you want to somehow put Ali ibn Hussain in verse of Tatheer, then let me help you out in doing so, using Shia hadeeth.

We read in Shia hadeeth:
حَدَّثَنا مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ أحْمَد السَنانِي قالَ حَدَّثَنا مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ أَبي عَبْدِ اللَّه الكُوفِي قالَ حَدَّثَنا الفَيْضُ صالِح بْنِ أحْمَد قالَ حَدَّثَنا سَهْلِ بْنِ زِياد قالَ حَدَّثَنا صالِح بْنِ أَبي حَمَّادٍ قالَ حَدَّثَنا الحَسَن بْنِ مُوسَى بْنِ عَلِى الوَشَّاء البَغدْادي قالَ كُنْتُ بِخُرَاسَانَ مَعَ عَلِيِّ بْنِ مُوسَى الرِّضَا عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ فِي مَجْلِسِهِ وَزَيْدُ بْنُ مُوسَى حَاضِرٌ قَدْ أَقْبَلَ عَلَى جَمَاعَةٍ فِي الَْمجْلِسِ يَفْتَخِرُ عَلَيْهِمْ وَيَقُولُ نَحْنُ وَنَحْنُ وَأَبُو الْحَسَنِ‏ عَلَيْـهِ السَّـلامُ مُقْبِـلٌ عَـلَى قَـوْمٍ يُحَدِّثُهُمْ فَسَمِعَ مَقَالَةَ زَيْدٍ فَالْتَفَتَ إِلَيْهِ فَقَالَ يَا زَيْدُ أَغَرَّكَ قَوْلُ نَاقِلِي الْكُوفَةِ إِنَّ فَاطِمَةَ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ أَحْصَنَتْ فَرْجَهَا فَحَرَّمَ اللَّهُ ذُرِّيَّتَهَا عَلَى النَّارِ فَوَاللَّهِ مَا ذَلِكَ إِلا لِلْحَسَنِ وَالْحُسَيْنِ وَوُلْدِ بَطْنِهَا خَاصَّةً وَأَمَّا أَنْ يَكُونَ مُوسَى بْنُ جَعْفَرٍ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ يُطِيعُ اللَّهَ وَيَصُومُ نَهَارَهُ وَيَقُومُ لَيْلَهُ وَتَعْصِيهِ أَنْتَ ثُمَّ تَجِيئَانِ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ سَوَاءً لانْتَ أَعَزُّ عَلَى اللَّهِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ مِنْهُ إِنَّ عَلِيَّ بْنَ الْحُسَيْنِ كَانَ يَقُولُ لُِمحْسِنِنَا كِفْلانِ مِنَ الأَجْرِ وَلِمُسِيئِنَا ضِعْفَانِ مِنَ الْعَذَابِ
 Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Sinani narrated that Muhammad ibn Abi Abdullah al-Kufi quoted on the authority of Abul Faydh Salih ibn Ahmad, on the authority of Sahl ibn Ziyad, on the authority of Saleh ibn Abi Hammad, on the authority of Al-Hassan ibn Musa ibn al-Vosha’ al-Baghdadi, “I was with Ali ibn Musa Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.) in his meeting in Khorasan where Zayd ibn Musa (Imam Ar-Ridha’’s brother) was present and was haughty with those present saying that we (meaning the offspring of Imam Musa Al-Kazim (a.s.)) are such and such. Abul Hassan Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.) who was talking to others heard what Zayd had said. He (a.s.) faced him and said, ‘O Zayd! Have the words of the narrators from Kufa made you so proud when they say, ‘(The Blessed Lady) Fatima (a.s.) maintained her chastity, thus God has forbidden the Fire from touching her progeny.’ By God, this holds true only for Al-Hassan (a.s.), Al-Husayn (a.s.) and Fatima’s (a.s.) own especial offspring. However, if it were the case that your father Musa ibn Ja’far (a.s.) obeyed God, fasted in the daytime and worshipped God at night, but you disobey God and claim to be equal with him (Musa ibn Ja’far (a.s.)) in the Hereafter on the Resurrection Day, this would imply that you are dearer than him (Musa ibn Ja’far (a.s.)) in the sight of God. In fact, Ali ibn Al-Husayn (a.s.) said, ‘There are double rewards for the good-doers from amongst us, and there are double chastisements for the evil-doers from amongst us.’’”[Shia book: Uyun Akhbar Reza a.s, Author: Shaikh Sadooq, Chapter 58]

One would question from where did Ali ibn Hussain get this idea from? The answer is, it is mentioned in the verses before Verse of Tatheer, and they were addressed to wives of Prophet(saws).

O wives of the Prophet, whoever of you should commit a clear immorality - for her the punishment would be doubled two fold, and ever is that, for Allah, easy. And whoever of you devoutly obeys Allah and His Messenger and does righteousness - We will give her her reward twice; and We have prepared for her a noble provision [Quran 33: 30-31]

So you see, Imam Ali bin Hussain(ra) actually used the direction given to wives of Prophet(saws) and he included himself among it.

In addition, I think that even Al-Bukhari believed in that narration from Imam As-Sajjad. As he used to use عليه السلام [i.e., peace be upon him] for Imam As-Sajjad (as) [See Sahih Al-Bukhari, V4, P78, H3091 (عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ، قَالَ: أَخْبَرَنِي عَلِيُّ بْنُ الحُسَيْنِ، أَنَّ حُسَيْنَ بْنَ عَلِيٍّ عَلَيْهِمَا السَّلاَمُ أَخْبَرَهُ)/ V9, P137, H7465 (عَنْ عَلِيِّ بْنِ حُسَيْنٍ، أَنَّ حُسَيْنَ بْنَ عَلِيٍّ، عَلَيْهِمَا السَّلاَمُ أَخْبَرَهُ)].
Keep these childish proofs to yourself. Because I can use this same argument to claim that other Scholars like Bayhaqi, Abi Dawood,  Ibn Saad, etc considered Ayesha as Ahlelbayt and that she was included in 33:33

أن سودة كانت وهبت يومها لعائشة عليها السلام
الطبقات الكبرى لابن سعد ج 8 ص 54

عن أبي سَلَمَةَ عن عَائِشَةَ عليها السلام
سنن أبي داود ج 3 ص 233

كانت يد أبي هريرة في يدي يعين ليلة ماتت عائشة عليها السلام
الطبقات الكبرى ج 8 ص 80

The fact about Alaihisalam before the names of some personalities is that:
Imam Ibn Katheer (rah) said: It is very common among many of the scribes who copy out books to write ‘alayhi’l-salaam (peace be upon him) after the name of ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him) but not after the names of other Sahaabah, or to write karrama Allaah wajhahu. Even though the meaning is acceptable, all the Sahaabah should be treated with the same respect. The two Shaykhs (i.e., Abu Bakr and ‘Umar) and ‘Uthmaan are more deserving of that, may Allaah be pleased with them.  [Tafseer Ibn Katheer, 3/517-518 ]

So it can be said that some scribes added alaihi salam to name of Imam Sajjad as well. By the way we find it being used for Umm Khulthum(ra) as well, So now you must believe that even she was Ahlelbayt.

Sahi bukhari:

5504 حدثنا أبو اليمان أخبرنا شعيب عن الزهري قال أخبرني أنس بن مالك أنه رأى على أم كلثوم عليها السلام بنت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم برد حرير سيراء
Sahabah-AhlulBayt / Re: Ibn Sayyed: Dajjal or Companion?
« Last post by Hani on Yesterday at 03:49:18 AM »
If you're asking whether he's a Sahabi or not, he seems to be a Tabi`ee:

الذهبي في كتابه (تجريد أسماء الصحابة) فقال: (عبد الله بن صياد أورده ابن شاهين، وقال: هو ابن صائد كان أبوه يهوديا فولد عبد الله أعور مختوناً، وهو الذي قيل إنه الدجال ثم أسلم فهو تابعي له رؤية)

After embracing Islam he seems to have been rightfully guided.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10